Supreme Court Hearings Begin
Senate confirmation hearings begin today for Supreme Court nominee John Roberts and readers are weighing in on the process and on the would-be chief justice.
In response to Fred Barbash's Campaign for the Court blog this morning, Chad Reese writes, "..., I'd like my elected officials to concentrate less on Roberts' personal views (which could well change over time) and more on his fairness in deciding cases, his consistency in constitutional interpretation, and his ability to make sound judgments in general. I'm sure I'll disagree with the guy on a lot of things, but a good judge will look beyond their personal feelings in a case and decide fairly anyway."
"...it will be a difficult task to discredit Roberts' glowing resume," says Justin. "His legal expertise is essentially 'perfect' for a Supreme Court nominee, but I think once the ideological discussions ensue, Roberts' responses to the questions at hand will be put under the microscope. I wonder if he will take the 'no comment' approach used by Justice Bader-Ginsburg."
On the discussion forums, npronpro1 takes a skeptical view of the nominee, the administration and the press. "I think that in the memos 'held back' by the Bush administration are likely to contain not a few ultra-right hard-hearted ideas/concepts/positions. I hope the press is not so lazy and those in the know will work together to get this information out..."
In a Live Online discussion with University of California Law Professor John Yoo, a reader from Odenton, Md. asked, "How can someone that has never been a Supreme Court Justice be nominated for Chief Justice? For me it seems as if a person is becoming 'police Chief' yet, was never an officer. Does the public have any say in this matter?" Yoo answered that, "...there is no requirement in the Constitution that the Chief Justice have previously been a member of the Court," adding that, "Many of our most successful Chief Justices have come directly onto the Court from outside the judiciary."
By Lindsay Howerton |
September 12, 2005; 12:47 PM ET
| Category:
Courts and Crime
Previous: The Future Of New Orleans |
Next: Homeland Security Tactics Examined
Posted by: Peggy Kandies, SC | November 27, 2005 08:38 AM
Post a Comment
We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.
User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.
If gov Warner can't make a decision on Robin Lovitt's evidence being destroyed and he's "Lost in Thought", on another pnmate issue, how could we trust him to be President?
Robin Lovitt had a birthday on Nov 6th and he was 42. What a way to spend a birthday knowing the state wants to kill him after crucial evidence was destroyed by a "clerk'. What, if any, punishment has he gotten? He broke the law!
Gov Warner wants to run for president, I don't think we could trust him.
He has a chance to make things right for Robin and other wrongful acts against inmates by the courts.
Peggy kandies
SC